Ethics and foreign policy : negotiation and invention

Marthe Sotong Ethics in International Relations, 2014

The effects of globalization have increased States ethical obligations and the willing to stop people suffering and atrocities. In that sense, Shapcott, M. (2011, p.197) defines ethics as the evaluative study of what actors ought to do. Indeed, it can be said that the international actors should take moral responsibilities towards their own citizens first and then towards other states, even if there is no clear agreement about the attitude to be adopted by states. In this perspective, this essay will focus on the definitions of the role of ethics in International Relations by different theories, mainly realism, liberalism, cosmopolitanism and pluralist ethics. Then, it will criticize the fact that ethics in International Relations should be (but it is not always the case), a roadmap for international actors constraining them to have relationships based on the respect of norms, values and moral principles.

Millennium-Journal of International Studies

An ethical foreign policy can have no objectives other than those that are of service to its own people. An unethical foreign policy, however, may pursue objectives that enhance the nation as a power, seeking dominance for its own sake, for the honor, glory and wealth of the state or a minority within the state, or spreading its ideology out of missionary fervor. The mainstream wisdom in the United States is that the US foreign policy agendas are virtuous and ethical, since they are oriented mainly towards the protection and enhancement of the American ‘National Interest’. Nevertheless, the orthodox perception among many foreign observers is that the American foreign policy is by no means ethical, since it is oriented exclusively towards the promotion of the Americans’ interests at the expense of the rest of the world. My thesis is that the US foreign policy is unethical and anti-democratic mainly because it is causing a lot of harm to the American taxpayers’ interests. I esteem that the American people are the real permanent victims of their country’s globalist stance. This article is based on an argumentative criticism of the mainstream American perception of U.S. foreign policy as well as a criticism of the foreign observers’ perception of American foreign policy. In a nutshell, this article tries to highlight the unethical nature of the American foreign policy with a focus on the complex justifications for such an undemocratic globalist agenda.

International Politics, 2007

2013

Journal of Global Ethics, 2005

Discussions of global ethics—about the types of normative claim made on individuals and groups, not only states, by individuals and groups around the world—have had to move beyond the categories inherited in the International Relations discipline. Many important positions are not captured by a framework developed for discussion of inter-state relations. The blindspots seem to reflect an outmoded expectation that (i) giving low normative weight to national boundaries correlates strongly with (ii) giving more normative weight to people beyond one's national boundaries, and vice versa; in other words that these two dimensions in practice reduce to one. The paper develops an enriched categorization. We need to recognize the separate importance of the two dimensions, and thus distinguish various types of 'cosmopolitan' position, including many varieties of libertarian position which give neither national boundaries nor pan-human obligations much (if any) importance.

Ethics & International Affairs, 2008

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2003

This article analyses the shift, from the openly declared pursuit of national interests in foreign policy, to the growing emphasis on ethical or moral duties to protect the rights and interests of others, often in areas where western states have little economic or geo-strategic interest. It suggests that while international changes may have provided the opportunity to present foreign policy in ethical terms, an important impetus behind ethical foreign policy interventions may lie in the domestic sphere and the search for new mechanisms of enhancing political legitimacy. Ethical foreign policy is ideally suited to buttressing the moral authority of governments, often under question in the domestic context, because policymakers are less accountable for matching ambitious policy aims with final policy outcomes in the international sphere. The gap between rhetoric and responsibility lies in the fact that policy can be declared a success with little regard for policy outcomes, as there is no formal accountability to non-citizens abroad, while problems can be blamed on the actions of other people or their governments. The freedom of manoeuvre provided by the ethical agenda of foreign policy activism allows governments to cohere a sense of purpose and mission through the projection of their power abroad when they find it increasingly difficult to act decisively at home.

Policy Studies Journal, 1974

Last month Worltluiew published an essay by Jolm Courtney Xlurray, S.J. thut strongly criticized the current "ambiguist" approach to problems of ethics and foreign policy and argued for a return to "the tradition of reason in moral dfairs." In this issue JVorMvieru presents eh?ended comments on Father h,lurray's article by Kenneth W. Thompson and Hans J. Morgenthau. Dr. Thompson is the author of Christian Ethics a r d the Dilemmas of Foreign Policy and PoZitical Realism and the Crisis of M70rld Politics; Dr. Morgenthau is the author of Dilernrrias of Politics and the forthcoming Thc Prrrposc of Anicrica.